"Many evangelicals...believe that young-earth creationism is the only authentically biblical position for Christians to hold on origins and that all Christians believed this until they started compromising with Darwin's theory of evolution. This is simply not true. Young-earth creationism is relatively new and as recently as a century ago even fundamentalist Christians saw little reason to reject evolution."

To be frank, Michael, claiming that only people who believe in a 6000 year old earth are true Christians shows that they are ignoring the fact that the Gospel is what churches should be focussing their attentions on. I don't recall Jesus at any point summoning us all to spread the word that the earth is 6000 years old.

Luke Tyler wrote:To be frank, Michael, claiming that only people who believe in a 6000 year old earth are true Christians shows that they are ignoring the fact that the Gospel is what churches should be focussing their attentions on. I don't recall Jesus at any point summoning us all to spread the word that the earth is 6000 years old.

Luke Tyler wrote:To be frank, Michael, claiming that only people who believe in a 6000 year old earth are true Christians shows that they are ignoring the fact that the Gospel is what churches should be focussing their attentions on. I don't recall Jesus at any point summoning us all to spread the word that the earth is 6000 years old.

You don't understand! If the first few chapters of the bible aren't literally true, then the rest of the bible cannot be true either. Without a literal Adam and Eve and their literal fall from grace then there is no need for salvation from sin and no reason for Jesus to save us all.

If we concede that the first few chapters aren't utter factual, in every sense, then we may as well give it all up. What Jesus said or didn't say is irrelevant if the foundation of the bible is just an allegorical myth designed to portray the failure of human nature to remain 'good'.

Besides, if you hold human observed and interpreted evidence over and above the literal, 100% factual Word of God, then you're not a true christian. Our own senses are fallible, the bible isn't. It's accurate and precise and has never changed.

As backed up by a recent survey and like most atheists, I know a lot about the major religions, their beliefs and various sub-sections. To have a lack of belief in a god requires, simply to be intellectually honest, to know what you don't believe in. Anyone can profess a lack of belief, but ignorance of an opinion isn't the same as disbelief.

It's fundamentalist χians that are the worst when it comes to knowing what the opposite side believe apparently. Who'd've thunk it?

Do you know I've learnt far more about my old religion since abandoning it. And may I point out the glaring contradiction between creation story one and two yet again. And the fact that Marc and every other creationist questioned about it has fudged some illogical nonsense or haven't responded. Especially daft Dr Blake.

Luke Tyler wrote:To be frank, Michael, claiming that only people who believe in a 6000 year old earth are true Christians shows that they are ignoring the fact that the Gospel is what churches should be focussing their attentions on. I don't recall Jesus at any point summoning us all to spread the word that the earth is 6000 years old.

You don't understand! If the first few chapters of the bible aren't literally true, then the rest of the bible cannot be true either. Without a literal Adam and Eve and their literal fall from grace then there is no need for salvation from sin and no reason for Jesus to save us all.

If we concede that the first few chapters aren't utter factual, in every sense, then we may as well give it all up. What Jesus said or didn't say is irrelevant if the foundation of the bible is just an allegorical myth designed to portray the failure of human nature to remain 'good'.

Besides, if you hold human observed and interpreted evidence over and above the literal, 100% factual Word of God, then you're not a true christian. Our own senses are fallible, the bible isn't. It's accurate and precise and has never changed.

(My god I sound almost genuine! )

That was hilarious! There must be loads of people who'll say almost exactly that!I love it how the factual interpretation of every word of the beginning of Genesis seems to matter for more than anything Jesus ever did or said to some people.

Actually what seems to matter to the average, creationist sympathetic, evangelical is the Fall. Crudely put without the Fall, no sin, Christ's sacrifice is meaningless. It is seen as a very necessary foundation to Christianity. They need the Fall, but I am uncertain as to why it must happen as written, rather than be allegory/metaphor, as I personally see no theological obstacle in that. However, I don't adhere to the concept of inherency.

'If I can shoot rabbits then I can shoot fascists'Miners against fascism.Hywel Francis

Michael wrote:I suppose evangelicals are so good and pure that they have no sins needing to be forgiven but only Adam's

When it come to creationists, there seems to be a pathological inability to even recognise, let alone, admit, that they are wrong about anything. I must have seen every trick in the book played by creationists trying to avoid being "straight".

jon_12091 wrote:Actually what seems to matter to the average, creationist sympathetic, evangelical is the Fall. Crudely put without the Fall, no sin, Christ's sacrifice is meaningless. It is seen as a very necessary foundation to Christianity. They need the Fall, but I am uncertain as to why it must happen as written, rather than be allegory/metaphor, as I personally see no theological obstacle in that. However, I don't adhere to the concept of inherency.

It would be pointless to deny that there is an awful lot of sin in the world today. In the general discussion section of this very forum, Robert Byers has been making racist remarks. The whole point of dying Jesus is that we can be forgiven. I don't understand what the problem is: there is evil in the world today, Jesus died to forgive us.

jon_12091 wrote:Actually what seems to matter to the average, creationist sympathetic, evangelical is the Fall. Crudely put without the Fall, no sin, Christ's sacrifice is meaningless. It is seen as a very necessary foundation to Christianity. They need the Fall, but I am uncertain as to why it must happen as written, rather than be allegory/metaphor, as I personally see no theological obstacle in that. However, I don't adhere to the concept of inherency.

It would be pointless to deny that there is an awful lot of sin in the world today. In the general discussion section of this very forum, Robert Byers has been making racist remarks. The whole point of dying Jesus is that we can be forgiven. I don't understand what the problem is: there is evil in the world today, Jesus died to forgive us.

I don't understand it either and the theological language gets technical quickly, but people have said as much too me (admittedly they were Brethren). It is linked to Calvinism and AFAIK a lot of prominent creationists in the UK come from strongly Calvinist churches....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Man

'If I can shoot rabbits then I can shoot fascists'Miners against fascism.Hywel Francis

Interesting. I knew that there was a lot of philosophical baggage tied up with calvinism, but not that creationists over here come from that particular "biblical camp". We go to a small local evangelical, one of whom a geologist and close friend of dad's (not a YEC, of course.)